Your Say: What Morrison really stands for

Sometimes, it takes a few days or weeks for Crikey readers to mull over a subject before sending their thoughts to Your Say (letters@crikey.com.au). But this wasn’t the case when responding to Bernard Keane’s questioning of Scott Morrison’s vision for Australia, which saw readers firing back immediately — and with deadly aim.

Elsewhere, readers thought over the question of allowing unvaccinated celebrities into Australia (and what it means for the rest of us), and responded to Kishor Napier-Raman and Georgia Wilkins’ investigation of the crisis faced by the university sector.

On what Morrison stands for

Serge Galitsky writes: I really think the comparable prime minister to the present incumbent is the late Billy McMahon. Billy lost the gig almost 50 years ago. (I know, I’m showing my age.) Billy was quite silly but had a sense of gravitas which he could not demonstrate convincingly. He gave all of us a laugh and we were happy to see him go. Sadly we do not have Gough to replace poor old Captain Bullshit. But Albo might just do it…

Stephen Dunn writes: It’s hard to decide where to start. For a person so wrapped up with religion he is devoid of any empathy for those less well off. Be it his changes to the aged pension entitlement removing many from the pension, robodebt, failure to increase JobSeeker, he is only interested in those with money and influence. His determined efforts to gut universities, public education says a lot plus current attempts to exempt religious bodies from anti discrimination laws is not great for our secular society. His persistent lying and lack of any remorse when found out is reprehensible. Overall in my mind a fail as PM. But with the MSM support I would not be surprised if he won the next election.

Kaz Bartaska writes: Australian history is short and bittersweet!  It is easy to understand who we are and why we mostly end up with prime ministers like Scott Morrison and deputy PMs like Barnaby Joyce. The questions you pose for him are most relevant but are rarely, if ever, discussed as the most important topics that they are.

Australia was born of negative opportunism. A dumping ground for the unwanted and a gulag for the search of riches. Who of the elite wanted to come to a land with none of the accoutrements of society? Certainly not the best and brightest. People like Morrison are cultural descendants of those sent to lord over us. The extraordinary riches they did find only added to their sense of justified superiority to the masses. This false sense of superiority has extended his fog of riches to imagine that our balance sheet determines our maturity. He has taken our wealth as a justification and responsibility to lecture others.

Morrison is a product of our history and our massive misused wealth. He is not a leader that strives to grow the intellectual capacity of his constituents and create a sense of pride in who we are for what we are, and not for what we have.  He sees himself as our benevolent master, nothing more.

On vaccinated celebs

Dennis Wheelahan writes: Sports “stars” and “celebrities“ lead obscenely privileged and advantageous lives, and to suggest that different standards of vaccine compliance should apply to them offends every sense of justice and equity that I hold dear. The health and welfare of members of our community trumps any consideration of the ephemeral benefits of the presence of a ball hitter or a singer.

William Matthews: I think Australia should adopt a liberal attitude to vaccination. I think sports stars, celebrities and the average citizen should get an easy ride into Australia. Our national anthem says it all when it says “we are young and free”, demanding someone have a vaccine is a imposition on freedom. We should be happy with the protection that the vaccine offers and not grasp for the added security by imposing on another’s liberty. To adopt a preference for health and security now is such a dramatic change that a plebiscite should be held on the subject.

Jenny Sambrook writes: I think unvaccinated players should be banned from the Australian Open. Apparently all the spectators and people working at the tournament have to be vaccinated, why make different rules for players? Nobody probably wants to be vaccinated but the majority of people do it to protect themselves and help to protect others. Sportsmen are no different from any other human.

Don Matthews writes: No one should be allowed to enter Australia unless they show proof of full vaccination. Do you want the risk of infection, or a tennis match?

On the crisis in higher education

Angela Giblin writes: Concerning Australian universities, I’ve observed over a number of years their decline. I attended university in the ’60s, and I consider that I am fortunate to have received a good education in the humanities. I feel sorry for today’s young people, as neoliberal policies have been terrible for Australian tertiary institutions, particularly since the Howard era. I recall that the Howard government funded the nation’s private schools much more generously than our public universities. Whatever follies the latter may have committed, federal policy over years was the initial and continuing cause.

David Beins writes: Crikey’s analysis of a beleaguered university sector begs the question: what is the purpose of a university and what should it be? In the absence of an explicit government mandate the sector has thus far self-identified as a provider of tertiary education and research services, while latterly, in pursuit of real-world relevance, variations around the “engagement” theme have crept into the lexicon. Unfortunately none of these things adequately represent what a university is actually for. 

As places of higher learning which exist principally for the benefit of society, universities should function as repositories of knowledge from which society can draw for collective wisdom, innovation, learned discourse and critical thought. To deliver on this mission universities should operate neither as a businesses nor a public service but something in between, like an essential utility. Accordingly universities should be funded in large part from the public purse reflecting the enormous public good they deliver, with private sector top-ups paying for the accrual of private utility. And therein lies the problem.

For too long the funding mix, endorsed by both sides of politics, has increasingly been the other way around. Compounding the problem successive governments have taken a free-market laissez faire approach and allowed market forces drive growth-orientated competitive behaviour rather than mobilising the sector around a unifying purpose. It’s no small wonder therefore that the university sector has struggled for decades under the burden of muddled priorities and, in the wake of COVID, is now facing existential crisis. 

Has something in Crikey got you fired up? Let us know by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name if you would like to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.